Pedagogical environments in education for six-year-old children in Finland and in the Netherlands

(1)

Pedagogical Environments in Education for six-year-old children in Finland and in the Netherlands

Outi Schumilov

Master’s Thesis in Early Childhood Education Spring 2017 Department of Education University of Jyväskylä Instructor: Raija Raittila

(2)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Schumilov, Outi. 2016. Pedagogiset toimintaympäristöt 6 –vuotiaiden lasten opetuksessa Suomessa ja Hollannissa. Varhaiskasvatustieteen pro gradu - tutkielma. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden laitos. 94 sivua + liitteet.

Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tarkastella pedagogisia toimintaympäris- töjä 6-vuotiaiden lasten kasvatuksessa Suomessa ja Hollannissa sekä selvittää, löytyykö niiden välillä eroja tai yhtäläisyyksiä. Tutkimus rajattiin, mukaillen varhaiskasvatuksen laatuun keskittyviä tutkimuksia, tarkastelemaan pedagogisia strategioita sekä puitetekijöitä.

Tutkimus oli laadullinen, ja se toteutettiin pääosin etnografian pe- riaatteita noudattaen. Tutkimuksessa näkyy myös poikkikulttuurisen sekä ver- tailevan tutkimuksen ominaispiirteitä. Aineisto koostui havainnointimuistiin- panoista, valokuvista sekä havainnointipäiväkirjasta. Aineistot kerättiin kahdesta suomalaisesta esiopetusryhmästä sekä kahdesta hollantilaisesta koulu- laisryhmästä. Havainnointeja tehtiin jokaisessa ryhmässä noin viikon ajan. Ai- neisto analysoitiin käyttämällä aineistolähtöistä sisällönanalyysiä.

Tutkimus osoitti, että havainnoiduissa hollantilaisissa ryhmissä käytettiin enemmän eriyttämistä pedagogisena strategiana 6-vuotiaiden lasten opetuksessa kuin Suomessa havainnoiduissa esiopetusryhmissä. Viimeksi mainittujen ryhmien opetuksessa korostui enemmän toiminnallisen oppimisen strategiat.

Hollannin ryhmät käyttivät enemmän teknologiaa opetuksen tukena kuin Suomen havainnointiryhmät, vaikka sitä korostettiin enemmän Suomen var- haiskasvatusta ohjaavissa asiakirjoissa. Huomattavin ero puitetekijöissä oli ai- kuisten ja lasten suhdeluvut. Suomen ryhmissä oli keskimäärin vähemmän lap- sia aikuista kohti kuin Hollannin ryhmissä. Tämän tutkimuksen perusteella kulttuurien väliset erot pedagogisissa toimintaympäristöissä näkyvät helpom- min pedagogisten strategioiden myötä, joita ohjaa kuitenkin myös varhaiskasvatuksen puitetekijät.

Avainsanat: pedagogiset toimintaympäristöt, relationaalinen ympäristö, etnografia, poikkikulttuurinen tutkimus, vertaileva tutkimus, 6-vuotiaiden ope- tus

(3)

ABSTRACT

Schumilov, Outi. 2016. Pedagogical Environments in Education for six-year- old children in Finland and in the Netherlands. Master’s Thesis of Early Childhood Education. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Education. 94

pages + appendixes.

The aim of this study is to observe pedagogical environments in Education for six-year-old children in Finland and in the Netherlands and to find possible similarities or differences in them. This study was delimited, paraphrasing research about the quality qualifications of Early Childhood Education, to observe the pedagogical strategies and structural conditions.

This study was carried out with qualitative approach and followed the principals of ethnography. Some features of cross-cultural and comparative research is also seen in this study. The data conducted of field notes, pictures and field diary with refinements and conversations with teachers. The observa- tional data was collected in two Finnish preschool groups and two Dutch school groups. One week of observations were carried out in each group. The data was analysed using inductive content analysis.

The research showed that the Dutch groups used differentiating as a pedagogical strategy more than the Finnish groups. In the latter, functional learning strategies were highlighted. The Dutch groups used technology as a tool in teaching more than the Finnish although the Finnish theoretical framework highlighted it more. The most notable difference in the structural conditions was found in the adult-child ratio. Finnish groups there was on average less children per adult than in the Dutch groups. Based on this study it can be stated that cultural differences in pedagogical environments can be seen well in pedagogical strategies which are however, also guided by the structural conditions.

Keywords: pedagogical environments, relationally constructed environment, educational institutions, ethnography, cross-cultural study, comparative study, education for 6-year-olds

(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

This study observes pedagogical environments in two Finnish preschools and two Dutch schools. The aim is to sort out possible similarities and differences between the pedagogical environments in these countries in the education for six-year-old children. In this study pedagogical environments are re- searched from the viewpoints of structural conditions and pedagogical strategies. These two perspectives are formed based on some quality qualifications of Early Childhood Education. Pedagogical environment as a concept contains two important and relevant components. Pedagogy is an essential part of education, hence it has always raised a lot of conversation and debate among people and cultures. Environments of children are always transmitted by cultural, local, national and international objects and influences (Raittila, 2009, 248). Ped- agogical environment is an extensive and versatile concept that tries to embrace all the pedagogical factors and aspects in the educational environment of children (Raittila, 2013, 70). Pedagogical environments are an important subject of discussion because that is what more or less defines the education and its quality.

Importance of this study can be justified with the lack of research about pedagogical environments and the significance of them in education for example based on the new National Curriculum of Finland (2017) and the Core Cur- riculum for Pre-primary Education. Another factor that makes this study important is that it reaches over national borders. Cross cultural study aims to research phenomenon’s in different contexts and different cultures (Gordon &

Lahelma, 2004, 99). Comparing pedagogical environments in Finland and in the Netherlands can help us to point out interesting things that might not be no- ticed if just researching nationally. There is constant educational evaluation in EU countries and a lot of discussion about making uniform regulations and goals for all countries considering Early Childhood Education (Sylva, Ereky- Stevens & Aricescu, 2015, 4−10). Raittila (2013, 88−89) claims the pedagogical

(7)

environment of early childhood education in Finland, is going through a big change, for example due to the economic situation. Also the group sizes and number of staff are varying considerably. That is why researching pedagogical environments is currently an important issue and can be justified.

In this study, educational institutions are seen as places such as preschools and schools where children and staff members are active participants forming the interaction and the environment. Public educational institutions are controlled by norms and acts of society and Early Childhood Education and Care ideologies.

(Alasuutari, 2009, 54−58.) Six-year-old children were selected as a group of focus based on my own interests on Finnish preschool and the difference between Finn- ish and Dutch educational systems. This age group hasn’t started primary school yet in Finland but in the Netherlands, they are already on the third grade of primary school. There has occasionally been discussion in Finland whether school should be started at earlier age as in many other European countries. Although this study doesn’t aim to answer that question, it is an interesting point of view to see how education is organized in two countries where school is started at a very different age. Government policies and parental employment patterns are what internationally effects on the age that children start school (Murray, 2015, 1718).

For instance in the Netherlands, where school is started earlier, the other parent commonly works only part time. It very much comes to what adults think about children’s development and how they should be educated (Murray, 2015, 1718).

In the second chapter I will define the pedagogical environments in this study and explain the essence of pedagogy as well as relational environment in relation to the pedagogical environments. I will present cultural perspectives and define some dimensions of pedagogical approaches. In the third chapter, structural conditions for pedagogical environments are described including curricular dimensions. Fourth and fifth chapter will introduce the research questions and design of this study in detail and the following two chapters will concentrate on describing the results of this study. Last chapter presents conclusions and significance of this study as well as measures taken to improve the trustworthiness. Fur- ther studies are also presented in the last chapter.

(8)

2 PEDAGOGICAL ENVIRONMENTS

In this study pedagogical environment is seen as an active environment that endorses children to learn, develop, explore and participate. Accord- ing to Raittila (2013, 70) environment is being built and produced in everyday practices including aspects from physical spaces to interaction. The actions and the environment always change by the choices, made mostly by adults but also the children, to adapt the environment according to the pedagogical and ideo- logical goals (Raittila, 2013, 70). The objectives of education form and build the pedagogical environment constantly and therefore different goals and quality qualifications have an important role in the process. In this study I am referring to widely used quality qualifications of education to describe aspects of pedagogical environments (see Huttunen et. 1995; Hujala, 1999; Hujala & Fonsén, 2010; Rosenthal, 2003; Alila, 2013).

Goals of quality for early childhood education are often divided to process and structural criteria. Process factors refer for example to social dimension and educational experiences of children. (Rosenthal, 2003, 102.) Dahl- berg (2007) also mentions interaction as part of the process factors and in Hu- jala-Huttunen et. (1995), Hujala et. (1999) and Hujala and Fonsén (2010) model, participation of the children is seen as an important aspect of the process factors. (Alila, 2013, 52.) The structural conditions are often suggested to include factors such as group size, adult-child ratio, teacher education, autonomy and support to educators and physical spaces (Rosenthal, 2003, 102). All above mentioned quality factors together form a premise for the construction of the pedagogical environment in Early Childhood Education in this research. In the following figure, one can see the essence of pedagogical environment in this study.

(9)

Figure 1 Pedagogical environments in this study

The above figure shows roughly how pedagogical environments are seen to form in this study. Firstly, the essence of pedagogy and the meaning of pedagogical strategies are presented in Chapter 2.1. Secondly, relationally con- structed environment and its meaning in this study will be defined in Chapter 2.2.

The importance of cultural perspectives will be presented in Chapter 2.3 although they are also closely attached to the structural conditions. Thirdly, I will introduce the structural conditions concerning pedagogical environments such as societal aspects and learning contexts including for instance physical settings and contents of education. Structural conditions will be presented by reflecting them to Early Childhood Education quality qualifications in Chapter 3. In this study I will use the acknowledged abbreviation ECEC, used in scientific articles to refer to Early Childhood Education and Care.

RELATIONALLY CONSTRUCTED PEDAGOGICAL ENVIRONMENTS

Everyday practices Adults, children..

Participation, interaction...

STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS REFLECTING

QUALITY QUALIFICATIONS Societal aspect: legal

framework Learning Context:

physical settings...

Culture Process factors PEDAGOGY

Pedagogical strategies Cultural perspectives

(10)

2.1 Pedagogy as a Premise for Early Childhood Education

In order to understand the meaning of pedagogical environments in this study, it is crucial to understand the essence of pedagogy. Referring to Raittila (2013, 70) pedagogy means having education, learning and supporting children’s development as a standing point for early childhood education. Peda- gogy changes and reforms along the changing society and perception of the child as well as childhood. All in all, pedagogy is seen as a contested and dy- namic space, defined and experienced in different ways thus it is still essential to remember that much of what is important to Early Childhood Education pedagogy is deeply embedded in current policies and practices (Murray, 2015, 1718−1719). According to Siraj-Blatchford, Muttock, Sylva, Gilden and Bell (2002, 28) pedagogy can be represented as enabling learning to take place in a social and material context with a set of teaching techniques and strategies. Er- go there can be as many different styles and forms of implementing pedagogy as there are teachers and classrooms.

According to Murray (2015, 1715) pedagogy in its simplest meaning is

‘leading young children’. He suggests that there are three main philosophers that have had the most impact in forming the meaning for pedagogy in ECEC;

Rousseau (1762), Pestalozzi (1801) and Froebel (1826). They all endorsed the importance of environment and saw the child as an individual who learns best through experiences and activities. (Murray, 2015, 1716.) In addition to Murray, Sylva et al. (2015, 6−7) pointed out that theoretical and philosophical traditions regarding pedagogy are widely shared in Europe. Froebel and Montessori as well as Piaget and Vygotsky are according to Sylva et al. (2015, 7) the most cited theorists who built the principles for pedagogy throughout Europe. The principles consist from, pedagogical interactions, enabling learning through explora- tion, stimulating environment and importance of institutional bodies which guide pedagogical practices, to name just a few. In the Finnish Act of Early Childhood Education and Care (L580/2015, 1 §) pedagogy is mentioned to be

(11)

the emphasis for a systematic and goal oriented ensemble of education, learning and care in Early Childhood Education. The Dutch government is also keen on keeping track of the pedagogical standards as well as educational quality in the Netherlands. Meeting and accepting the obligations of Constitutional law, concerning pedagogy and quality, will obtain the financial support of schools. (van Oers, 2012a, 179.)

When contemplating the essence of pedagogy, quality factors are an important point of view. The meaning of quality factors in forming the pedagogical environment in this study will be presented in the chapter 3 with structural conditions. Some quality factors go beyond cultural boundaries yet pedagogical strategies might take different forms in different countries (Sheridan, 2009, 257).

Pedagogical strategies are based on how the relationship between adult and a child is understood. Traditional understanding is that the adult is seen to be the supervisor or instructor for a group of children. That kind of view is yet often endorsed although the individuality of children is all the time more highlighted. (Karila, 2009, 261). Pedagogical strategies are formed in order to support learning and development of children. Teachers can have a big role in ensuring high quality pedagogical approaches by being aware of their own values, teaching methods and beliefs, yet the pedagogical strategies are always in relation to goals and objectives of the education. (Sheridan, 2009, 256−257.) All classrooms and groups have their own practices and daily routines which are formed by the pedagogical strategies and also include all the structural conditions of the pedagogical environments. Pedagogy is the main feature and the determiner of the practices of different pedagogical environments. In this study pedagogy is seen as different teaching and learning approaches together with educational quality in the context of relationally constructed environments.

2.2 Pedagogy in Relationally Constructed Environment

The focus of this study is the pedagogical environment and therefore defining environment, is important. Since pedagogy reflects time and societies, the

(12)

environment has to change along them. Environment can be defined to include all the surroundings arising from the everyday practices and all actors taking part in it (Raittila, R. 2013, 70). It is a mix of physical spaces and materials but also relationships and interactions happening in the circle of child’s habitat.

Grieshaber and McArdle (2014, 97) summarise Early Childhood environment as being “places of science, arts, adventures in learning and creativity, influencing the communities and schools around them”. That said, not only the environment affects people in it, but also the people affect the environment. Environ- ments should be evermore changing and reflecting the changes in the societies because children of today are not the same as children of yesterday (Zade, 2015). Harris, (2015, 1890) describes the classroom often being the first environment, outside home, where specific learning activities take place and children learn skills on how to live in a global society. In this study I am referring to the spaces of all of the groups participating as classrooms although in Finland preschool groups are not defined to use specific classrooms.

Relationally constructed environment can be seen to be formed from two aspects. Firstly, how children define the environment and secondly, how the environment determines the child. (Raittila, 2009, 245.) Forming and constructing ECEC environment, based on the relational approach, is a never ending process that essentially includes cultural and societal factors together with internal and daily practices (Raittila, 2013, 71). According to Gold (2005) relational pedagogy can be classified as relationships between people and their environments, awareness of cultural histories, inclusion and listening, responding to learners’ interests, seeing patterns in learning, co-constructing knowledge and emphasising the experiential learning, language and self-reflection (Murray, 2015, 1722). This theory proves how pedagogical environments can be different in different countries as well as communities. It can also mean that, even though the premises lay in standards and qualifications, still even different facilities and institutions always up to groups and classrooms can have different pedagogical environments. A challenge in relational approach is that everything changes continuously which means no international or national standards

(13)

can be made for the pedagogical environments (Sheridan, 2009, 246). However, in this study some national standards and structural conditions are presented in order to be able to research and evaluate the pedagogical environments.

When studying pedagogical environments in the institutions of education, concepts of spaces and spatiality are relevant (Alasuutari, 2009, 66). Soja (1996) uses the term spatiality to define relational environment and the connections between space, societies and the environment. According to Soja (1996, 75−76) in a physical point of view the environment can be understood as materialistic, observed by senses and surrounded by people. Yet it is important to acknowledge that the physical aspect is not everything. Soja (1996, 1) suggests that we are all active participants in constructing the social world around us.

Spatiality is constructed collectively and that is vital in order to make sense of our lives intimately as well as globally (Soja, 1996, 1). Albeit spatiality is collective, the relational space is always linked to the individual interpretation. The environment can get such different interpretations depending if you ask a child comparing to an adult's point of view. (Raittila, 2013, 73). Alongside collective and individual aspect of spatiality, Soja highlights the historical aspect in forming the environment. Spatiality is affected by all the traditions and older definitions that might not apply in our contemporary world anymore (Soja 1996, 2−3.) Historicality could be seen in this study as the aspect of cultural perspectives.

2.3 Cultural Perspectives

Cultural practices could be seen as structural conditions for pedagogical environments but in this study I have decided to connect it with the pedagogical approaches and the concept of relational environment. The kind of role education plays in the societies and how ECEC is practiced are matters of social and cultural values (MacNaughton, 2003, 114). Deformation of the culture of early childhood education as well as the pedagogical environment is highly affected by political, historical and social backgrounds of each country and culture. Eve- rything from understandings to different physical ways of interaction influence

(14)

substantially the organization of pedagogical environments. (Prochner, L., Cleghorn, A. & Green, N. 2008, 190.) Ergo, it is understandable how the differences or similarities form also in Finland and the Netherlands and how the best pedagogical environments for some culture might not apply with another. Dif- ferent cultural views on children and childhood create different discourses which makes it harder to have an international understanding of for example child-centeredness (Georgeson, J., Campbell-Barr, V., Bakosi, E., Nemes, M., Pálfi, S. & Sorzio, P. 2015, 1874). This applies to the whole education system and how it is formed, what rules lie under the national documents and how people think children should be raised. National documents pose an important role in both countries though they are highly contextual, historical and also sit- uational in many ways (Onnismaa, E-V. & Kalliala, M. 2010, 275).

The development and education of children can already be seen as cultural project in itself because the environments and communities they grow in are outcomes of cultural development. Children are for instance encouraged to in- teract in culturally appropriate ways with other people such as talking, thinking and behaving. The educators’ knowledge about development and education is reflecting all the internal information in each culture. The essence of education is social so it doubtlessly affects the ways that different societies create a culture. Also educational communities like day care centres and schools are always creating and renewing the cultures by their own actions. Through education, a lot of values, knowledge, skills and social practices are forwarded to children (Nummenmaa, 2006, 19−23). Simola (1995, 41−44) underlies that goals for teaching and learning always rise from outside the educational institutions mostly from the needs and requirements of the society and individuals. Yet the educational institutions have an important role in forming the culture of education.

Rosenthal (2003, 108) suggests that cultural contexts and their underlying values and beliefs about development are highly related to forming of educational practices and goals and for instance when defining and organising the learning environment for children. Karila (2009, 257) agrees that the cultural perspectives of children and how pedagogical environments should be con-

(15)

structed, form the current operating practices in educational institutions. She suggests that because of that, it is important that the cultural practices and ideologies should be always analysed and reviewed. Evaluation approach again refers to having certain quality factors that form the basis for reviewing the environments. Cultural values and developmental goals of each cultural commu- nity define the quality in ECEC and furthermore the quality of pedagogical environments (Rosenthal, 2003, 103).

As stated above, different things and aspects are valued in each culture.

When contemplating differences and similarities of those cultural values, we can start to understand how ECEC is seen and defined in Finland and in the Netherlands. This study represents cross-cultural and partly comparative approach of research which is important in order to understand the spectrum of ECEC policies nationally and worldwide. (Rogoff, 2003, 11−12; Rosenthal, 2003, 112.) What is also essential to remember is that there can be always more to learn and it is impossible to say what is right or wrong concerning cultural practices (Rogoff, 2003, 112). Although it is stated here that cultural aspects and staff members partly create the conditions for children’s lives in kindergartens and all the activities carried out by their pedagogical strategies, still the state child policies create the frames for those conditions. (Karila, 2009, 258.) Those frames will be presented in the next chapter about structural conditions for pedagogical environments.

(16)

3 STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS FOR PEDAGOGI- CAL ENVIRONMENTS

As stated in the previous chapters, although I am not researching quality yet I am reflecting the quality of ECEC to frame the pedagogical environments as pedagogical quality is closely attached to pedagogical environments. I decided to paraphrase some theories for pedagogical quality in order to separate the structural conditions of pedagogical environments from the process factors that are seen as pedagogical strategies in this study. (See for ex. Parrila, 2011; Sheri- dan, 2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986.) Sheridan (2009, 257) divides the pedagogical quality to be formed from four aspects producing quality which are the society, the teacher, the child and the learning context. In this study I am mostly using the societal and learning context aspects to form structural conditions for pedagogical environments.

In many of the models used to describe ECEC structural quality conditions are mentioned to be important aspects (see Hujala-Huttunen & Tau- riainen, 1995; Hujala, Parrila, Lindberg, Nivala, Tauriainen & Vartiainen, 1999;

Parrila, 2011; Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 2007; Leseman & Slot, 2014). Dahlberg (2007) defines that the structural conditions include group size, level of education of the staff and ECEC contents and subjects. Parrila (2011) constructed a model where the framework for quality of ECEC consists of physical environment, composition of the group and the persistence of human relationships.

(Alila, K, 2013, 54.) In addition to the above mentioned factors Leseman and Slot (2014, 317) adds availability of the play and learning materials and children-to-staff ratio to the structural quality factors. Hujala & Fonsén (2012, 319−321) and Sylva et al. (2015, 78−84) sum it all up and suggest that structural conditions defined for the quality of ECEC, and for that means also useable for pedagogical environments, include the spaces, materials, activities, staff-child ratio, day orders and other group policies. The following table will present the guidelines for structural factors in this study concerning pedagogical environ-

(17)

ments. It paraphrases the ecological theory for ECEC quality defined by Bron- fenbrenner (1979).

Table 1. Theoretical framework of this study for structural conditions in constructing the pedagogical environments (See Sheridan, 2007, 204−112; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986)

Structural conditions

Society  Laws, guidelines and curricula

Learning context

 Physical settings: spaces, materials, staff-child ratio, group size

 time structure

 planning

 contents

As seen in the above table, this study will be focusing on the society conditions such as laws and curricula as well as learning contexts including physical settings and contents. Next chapter will describe these guidelines for structural factors in this study. Firstly, I will present the societal aspect including the framework of pedagogical environments in Finland and in the Netherlands.

Secondly I will describe the structural conditions for learning contexts.

3.1 Societal aspect: National Documents Defining the Peda- gogical Environments

Societal aspect helps us to understand the socio-economic and also cultural context in which educational institutions (preschools and schools) of this study exists. Although some cultural perspectives were already presented earlier in the Chapter 2.3 they are also very much connected to the requirements of public policies. (Sheridan, 2007, 205.) Childhood and ECEC institutions and environments are in many ways regulated by the economic, social and political factors of the society (Karila, 2009, 250). Education plays a great role in constructing the identity of each country and that is why evaluating and problema-

(18)

tizing the interpretations of the educational matters of countries become important. National identity always reflects the education and the other way around. (Richardson, 2006, 284.) Acts, orientations and national laws of ECEC inspire the forming of concrete and cultural environment of ECEC institutions (Raittila, 2009, 246). In order to educate children to be successful members of cultural communities in their societies, some goals have to be determined for the relationship between individual and social group (Rosenthal, 2003, 111). In this study these goals are defined in laws, curriculums and other national documents.

One of these societal factors defining the pedagogical environments is the Convention on the Rights of the Child by United Nations. It is one of the prin- ciple premises honouring children’s views and both Finland and the Nether- lands have ratified it and follow its guidelines (Pekuri, H-M. 2014, 22; UNCRC, article 12). Educators should create a social environment where the child has possibilities to have their say and take a stand in matters concerning themselves. (Pekuri, H-M. 2014, 23; UNCRC, article 12.) Martin Woodhead (2010) highlights that the status of children in societies as well as in early childhood education has changed after the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Child used to be more of an object of protection instead of someone who is active in forming their own lives and futures. (Woodhead, 2010, xx; Bennet, 2005, 7). The Convention encourages countries to improve their education systems and curriculums by allowing higher level of initiatives to young children as well as reinforcing the elements of wellbeing and involvement of the child (Bennet, 2005, 7). It is a process of development where the staff as well as the whole education municipality level should be involved and supporting its means (Venninen, Lipponen, Leinonen & Ojala, 2014, 212).

Another matter of societal aspect in forming pedagogical environments is the curricula. MacNaughton (2003, 113) suggest that curricula can be seen as a political process which is produced by educators and children’s intentions and involvement. Intentions of the educators express some philosophical perspectives of education together with curriculum goals and pedagogical strategies for

(19)

instance to use of time, space and resources. According to Leseman and Slot (2014, 317) curriculum is a plan of what children can experience, what skills and knowledge they can develop and what values they can appropriate. All curricula should be based on one important quality factor which is enabling the children a good start in life. High quality of education, and furthermore pedagogical environments, includes competent and professional teacher with pedagogical knowledge. (Pramling Samuelsson, Sheridan & Williams, 2006, 11.) Kessler (2014, 33) suggest that when planning the curricula, it is essential to have a vision of the future, clear plans of what should be taught and justifications for it, clear understanding if all children follow the same curriculum as well as pon- der the relationship between teaching and the curricula. He summons it up by saying that the curricula should be formed based on the vision of what we want the children to become.

Holistic pedagogical philosophy, child-centeredness, seeing child as a unique human being, inclusion and equality are all curricular principles that are shared across Europe ergo also in Finland and the Netherlands (Sylva et al.

2015, 6). Albeit having several similarities between the curriculums of European countries, it is always the implementation that sets the real concrete examples of education in each country. The implementation is constrained by resources including staff training, ratios and budgets. (Sylva et al. 2015, 8.) As stated, having curricula with certain features that are intertwined in all, does not mean special features of each culture should be omitted in the own curricula of each country (Pramling Samuelsson et al. 2006, 26). Next, I will present some of these cultural and societal special characteristics of curricula in Finland and in the Netherlands.

Bennet (2005, 11) formed two types of broad curricula in Europe based on all the OECD reviews, which can help us to make a slight difference also in the Dutch and Finnish educational systems. The other curricula used for instance in Finland is called the social pedagogic approach. In this particular approach the em- phasis is on quality of life in ECEC institutions, children’s wellbeing and social development. Also staff child ratio, the size of groups and staff qualifications

(20)

are important factors of the approach. The other, pre primary approach, used for instance in the Netherlands, emphasizes teaching and child outputs. One major factor is ensuring continuity with school and facile transitions. In the next table one can see how some of the main traits and features of each approach are presented according to Bennet (2005) and OECD (2006).

Table 2 Two curricular dimensions in Europe (see Bennet, 2005, 12−13; OECD, 2006)

Traits Pre primary approach (For ex. The Netherlands)

Social pedagogical approach (for ex. Finland)

ECEC institution

Place for learning and instruction Life space where children learn to be, to know, to do and to live together

Curriculum Ministerial guidelines for objects and goals (In the Netherlands freedom of choice of curricula)

Broad national guidelines

Focus Learning and skills, school readiness, achieving curriculum goals

Working with the child and the whole family, developmental goals, learning, child- centeredness, interactivity.

Pedagogical strategies

Mix of instructions and child initiated activities, thematic work

Child’s own learning strategies and centres of interest, learning through play, relationships and educator scaffolding

Language and literacy

Individual competence: oral competence, pho- nemic and letter/word recognition,

Emergent literacy practices.

Individual competence: language production and the ability to communicate,

Holistic programming Outdoor and

indoor spaces

Indoors primary learning space, outdoors more of recreational are, important for motor skills development

Equal pedagogic importance

Assessments Often required, goals for the group often defined,

Graded assessment

Formal assessment not required, Developmental goals defined with parents and teacher,

Multiple procedures assessment favoured Quality control Based on clear objectives, inspection, and fre-

quently, on pre-defined learning outcomes, standardized testing may be used,

Participatory, based on educator and team re- sponsibility,

External validation undertaken by municipal pedagogical advisors,

Focus on center performance

(21)

Even though these two traditions can’t be directly used for describing the Early Childhood Education cultures in the Netherlands and in Finland, it gives us some indications of the institutional outlines for both cultures. Curriculums are not just defining the contents of education, as seen in the table, but also including spatial theories of cognitive and physical development (James, Jenks &

Prout, 1998, 41−47, Raittila, 2008). James, Jenks and Prout (1998) suggest that spatial decisions in curriculums are in a way using power by defining choices, rules and conventions.

In the pre-primary approach, educational institutions are defined to be places for learning and instructions whereas in the social pedagogical approach the main function of the educational institutions is considered to be a life space where children can learn to be, to know and to live. First cited refers to more academic philosophy and the latter to a holistic view of learning. Although all European countries are said to mainly follow the holistic approach, indications of pointing out the importance of academic philosophy are emerging throughout (Sylva et. 2015, 4−10). This can be seen also in assessment aspect because in pre-primary approach graded assessments are used and goals defined whereas social pedagogical approach lacks formal assessment.

3.1.1 Finnish framework for Pedagogical Environments

In Finland Early Childhood Education for 6-year-old children is to attend preschool which is mandatory for all children since 2015 (Basic Education Act, 2014, 26 a §). In this study preschool refers to education for 6-year-old children organised in public Educational institutions. In Finland preschool and day care institutions are under the ministry of Education and Culture since 2013 which means they are no longer considered as a social service but instead part of the education and schooling systems (Alila, K. 2014, 13).

ECEC is organized and supervised by government and it is regulated by basics of National Early Childhood Education Curriculum and Core Curricu- lum for Pre-primary Education. In addition, every municipality has their own

(22)

plans and curriculums to implement early childhood education and preschool.

According to Onnismaa and Kalliala (2010, 271) there are three key documents, in Finland for regulating ECEC which are the Act of Children’s day care, Educa- tional act and Core Curriculum for pre-primary education. The first mentioned is later improved to a revised Act on Early Childhood Education and Care in 2015 and is used as a guideline in constructing the curriculums. The Act em- phasises pedagogy and defines requirements for space and the use of them in order to being able to fulfill all the early childhood education goals (2015/580, 1

§). As one of the most important points in building a pedagogical environment the article number six points out that the environment has to be developing, promoting learning, healthy and safe in consideration of child’s age and state of development. It also states that all the function areas and materials should be appropriate and accessibility must be taken into account. (2015/580, 6 §.) The Finnish curriculums include some contents of learning as well as indications to school readiness but are mostly focusing on the essence of good childhood without setting specific learning objectives (Sylva et al. 2015, 27−29, 49).

The National Core Curriculum for Pre-primary Education sets guidelines and objectives for learning environments. Learning environments are sometimes called as synonyms for pedagogical environments. However, in this study learning environments are seen as one major factor of how pedagogical environments are constructed. Raittila (2013, 70−71) points out that the learning environments described in the National Preschool Curriculum are not sufficient in researching pedagogical environment which is why it is important to also refer to other theories for instance from social and environmental sciences. Learning environments should, according to the Finnish National Preschool Curriculum (2014, 23−24), be pedagogically formed, complex and flexible ensembles that enable play and diverse examination of things motivating children. This can be comprehended the way that play and active learning in the means of examining the environment is highly valued and an objective in the Finnish preschools.

The National Preschool Curriculum (2014, 23−24) also suggests that the use of technology, and possibilities offered by library, cultural and sport services

(23)

should be used as learning environments. The goal is for the learning environments to form comprehensive surroundings that support children to learn ac- tively, collaboratively and individually. (Finnish National Board of Educa- tion, 2014, 23−24.) The new National Curriculum, which will only be introduced to preschools 2017, goes by the same lines, yet highlighting functional learning and the use of technology even more than the current Curriculum.

Alongside the learning environments the Curriculum presents a concept of operational environment or culture of preschool (toimintakulttuuri). It is de- veloped by pedagogical strategies, different solutions of environments and by active participants and their experiences of the environment. (National Pre- school Curriculum 2014, 22.) The curriculum separates the operational and learning environment as the latter is seen more in a point of view of structural conditions concerning learning and teaching, including spaces, materials, communities and policies. On the other hand, operational environments, are seen more as decisions of pedagogical approaches, development of education and reforming the learning environment. Pedagogical environment can be seen to include these two dimensions of environments and to present a wider understanding of ECEC environments and how they should be organised.

3.1.2 Dutch framework for Pedagogical Environments

In the Netherlands children can start school at the age of four. The official compulsory education starts at the age of five. Ergo in the Dutch system Early Childhood Education for 6-year-old children refers to third grade of primary school. The first two grades from age 4-6, children are taught by nursery curriculum with opportunities for play and games, as well as activities to learn through discovery. Some pre reading and pre mathematic activities are also used to prepare children for formal learning in primary grade 3 (age 6), where formal instruction for reading, writing and arithmetic starts. (Broekhof, K. 2006, 3). Emphasis on academic contents increases towards going to the grade three.

(Sylva et. 2015, 20). It is also suggested that almost in all of the pre-primary ed-

(24)

ucation in the Netherlands, six-year-old children are practicing literacy and mathematics. The emphasis on teacher directed education and academic approaches have been growing ever since kindergartens were emerged with primary schools in 1985. (Sylva et. 2015, 38.)

The decisions and the control of the quality of education and care of schools and care providers are regulated by the governmental policies which are controlled for instance by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OECD, 2014, 14). Fundamental right of freedom in matters of education, is defined within the contexts of institutions, that are under governmental control by the Dutch Constitutional law and its main act concerning education; Article 23 (van Oers, 2012b, 178; the Dutch Constitutional law, 2008, 8). When researching the Dutch educational institutions, it is important to know how the freedom of educational choices as well as freedom of speech and for instance religion are extremely rooted and important values in Dutch culture. (van Oers, 2012b, 179.) This can already be seen by the enormous amount of choices in curriculums and pedagogical strategies. In addition to the different curriculum approaches and the public schools, there are several religious worldviews. Approximately 30 % of the schools are public and 70 % denominational, concept based or pri- vate (van Oers, 2012b, 179). Albeit the freedom of choosing the curriculum for 5-12-year-old children, there are some targets defined by the government that should be reached at the end of the primary school (Sardes, 2006, 5). The Consti- tutional law states many obligations and meeting and accepting those will obtain the financial support of schools. Measures to regulate the quality are for instance the staff Establishment Decree (Primary Education Act) which relates to the funding of staff and also Primary Education Attainment Targets Decree 1998. The attainment targets define what pupils are expected to have acquired in the way of knowledge, understanding and skills by the end of primary school.

Schools are free to choose from few main curricula as well as from smaller scale programs. However, all the programs will be checked for the reliable quality of an ECEC program. van Oers (2012b, 183) lists Piramide, Kaleidoscoop,

(25)

Startblokken/Basisontwikkeling (Starting blocks and Basic Development), Ervaringsgericht Onderwijs (Experience-oriented education) and Reggio Emilia to be the most used programmes alongside with Basic Development (play- based learning). All those curriculums define their own goals and quality factors for pedagogical environments paraphrasing national documents. Some schools might also have different curriculums for different school subjects which means the definitions for pedagogical environments are even wider and ambiguous.

3.2 Learning context

In this chapter I will present the dimension of learning contexts in structural conditions of pedagogical environments. In this study learning contexts are constructed from the physical settings including spaces, materials, staff- child ratio and group size together with time structures as in day orders of the groups, planning and contents of education (see Sheridan, 2007, 2).

One of the core aspects of physical settings is the space, or more wide, the whole physical environment. The physical space can be either built or natural or something in between. It is highly due to the socio-cultural view whether the built or natural environment is appreciated and valued (Prochner, Cleghorn &

Green, 2008, 190). In this study, the focus will be mostly on the built spaces indoors which is where most of the day is usually spent. Physical environment consists of places, spaces and materials that have to be organized in order for the children to be able to participate and form meanings from the surroundings (Nordtømme, S. 2012, 317). According to Doctoroff (2001, 105) how the physical environment is arranged, can support children’s play and development as well as enhance their participation in play. The essence for sustained, complex play for children lays in high quality, developmentally appropriate environments.

(Doctoroff, 2001, 105.)

Physical environments are always filled with values and expectations and that is why teachers have an important role in organizing the environment so

(26)

that it doesn’t exclude anyone (Nordtømme, S. 2012, 317). A vital function of the physical environment is to encourage and motivate children to learn and develop, so it can be an important pedagogical tool. Physical environment can at its best inspire children to move and try different materials by directing them to appropriate doing and learning. (Nordtømme, S. 2012, 319.) As play is one of the most important developmental tools and a way of learning, acknowledged by many experts, it is crucial to take into account the effects in creating a good pedagogical play environment. Arranging the play area lighting, having defined places to play with visible boundaries, keeping the noise levels down and making sure staff has the abilities to observe should be taken into consideration.

(Doctoroff, S. 2001, 105.)

Another key factor in learning context alongside forming the physical environment is the staff-child-ratio. It is an essential factor of the physical setting of the educational institutions and an important aspect of the quality of Early Childhood Education (Sylva et al., 2015, 77). Staff-child-ratio is presented to be a structural quality factor in many studies together with qualifications for staff members (Alila et al. 2014; Leseman & Slot, 2014, 317). In Finland the amount of staff and also the educational qualifications are all regulated by the early childhood education legislations (Lehtinen, 2000, 28−29). According to the regulations of day care article 6 §, there should be at least one person with the task required eligibility for eight children over three years old and in full day care. It used to be 1:7 but has recently been changed to eight children per one adult.

(Färkkilä, Kahiluoto & Kivistö 2006, 22.) In Finnish preschools, for 6-year-old children, there has to be one adult for 14 children. Third of the staff in kindergarten, working with children, should have qualifications of a kindergarten teacher and two thirds should have the qualifications of a practical nurse. (Ka- hiluoto, T. 2014, 37; Act on Teaching qualifications 1998/986). In preschool, en- actment of education department, defines the qualification factors for teachers.

They have to be either primary school teachers with master’s degree from education or kindergarten teachers with bachelor’s degree in early childhood education. (Act on Teaching qualifications, 1998/986, 7 §.)

(27)

There were no legal enactments to be found from the Dutch system for staff-child ratio but in some curriculums such as Kaleidoscoop and Piramide the preferable ratio is 1:8 (Broekhof, K. 2006, 10). However, OECD states that the ratio in the Netherlands is one adult per 10 children, ages 4-12. It is also said that staff ratios in the beginning of primary school are higher than preferred, but have been reduced recently to 20:1. (OECD, 2014). From these facts one may conclude that the staff-child ratio varies depending on the school and can be almost anything between 1:8 to over 1:20. In the Netherlands primary school teachers are trained in Primary Teacher Training Colleges which is a higher education level and where everybody is trained to teach children from the age 4 to 12. Broekhof (2006, 7) states that according to Education Staff Qualification Re- quirements Decree (2005) the training focuses on the development of teacher competencies such as interpersonal competencies, pedagogical competencies, subject-related and didactic competencies, organisational competencies, coop- erative competencies, and competencies related to professional reflection and development.

(28)

4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study aims to discover possible similarities and differences between Finnish and Dutch educational institutions for 6-year-old children and more specifically their pedagogical environments.

1. What are the differences and similarities between pedagogical environments in Finnish and Dutch educational institutions for 6-year-old children?

a. How are the pedagogical strategies in the Finnish and Dutch groups and are there some differences or similarities?

b. How are the structural conditions in each country and are there some differences or similarities?

The aim is not to be presenting all the differences and similarities between the pedagogical environments of these two countries but instead answer to the first research question by the perspective of two sub-questions. Pedagogical environment as a topic is very wide so I had to narrow the research themes down in order to have as high-quality information about the chosen topic as possible. Consequently, differences and similarities about pedagogical environments in Finland and in the Netherlands, will be research by pedagogical strategies and structural conditions.

(29)

5 RESEARCH DESIGN

5.1 Qualitative Research Approach and Participants

I chose to use qualitative approach of research in this study because the aim is to deeply understand the pedagogical environments (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009, 66). I knew based on a pre observation that there are some differences and similarities between pedagogical environments in Finland and the Netherlands but I didn’t know exactly how they are formed in the Netherlands. The fact that I didn’t know the other system and how the institutions are formed, also led me to use qualitative approach. Qualitative methods can according to Newby (2010, 115) help the researcher to understand for example people, how they live and what kind of meanings they give to experiences. It can also be a tool to figure out how things happen and why they happen as they do (Newby, 2010, 116).

Qualitative methods such as observation provide an opportunity to learn within the situation, which was the main thing I was interested on pedagogical environments in the first place (Watling, 2001, 263). Wanting to learn new things about educational institutions for 6-year-old children in Finland and also in the country where I currently live. I have always been interested in cross cultural studies and comparative research between different countries and cultures. The intention was not to formulate a theory, but to gain insight into the institutional choices in education for 6-year-old children in these countries and the reasons behind them. Observation is one of the main methods of qualitative research (Patton 2015, 14; Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2009, 71) I chose to use it as the main method of this study because it allows the researcher to be open and inductive as well as to possibly see something that people in the observed setting don’t see (Patton, 2015, 333). Grönfors (2010, 158) stated that getting information about children’s daily life and pedagogical environments would be hard without using observation as a method. Sometimes observations are used to

(30)

support another method however, in this study it is the main data collection method as the intention is to learn new things about unfamiliar contexts.

(Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009, 81; Grönfors, 2010, 158−159).

Figure 2 Participants of this study

As presented in the figure 2 the data for this study was collected in two preschool groups in Finland and two primary school third grade groups in the Netherlands. In order to differentiate the observed groups in the analysis I cod- ed the two preschool groups in Finland as FIN1 and FIN2 and the groups in the Netherlands as NL1 and NL2. In the Finnish groups all of the children were born in the year 2010 so they were either five or six years old. In the Dutch groups most of the children were also born 2010, however, in the NL1 there were three children born in 2009, two of them repeating the third grade. In the NL2 two were born 2009 and one child was born 2011.

I chose these two preschools from a medium sized city in Finland and emailed their directors asking the permission to collect the data in one group during one week. I chose the other preschool randomly and the other because it was in a different building with the school classrooms. In this city all preschool

PARTICIPANTS

FINLAND: 2 preschool groups, one week spent in both groups

FIN1: 13 children, 1 teacher, 1 practical

nurse

FIN2: 14 children, 1 teacher, 2 practical

nurses

THE NETHERLANDS:

two schoolgroups, third grade, one week

spent in both groups

NL1: 25 children, 1+1 teachers, 1 teacher

trainee

NL2: 25 children, 1+1 teachers, 1 teacher

trainee

(31)

groups are situated in school buildings but in this specific case it is located next to the school and not in it. I wanted to include this kind of preschool in to my study because in most of the municipalities in Finland preschool groups are still located in day care facilities. When the choices about the participants are made the researcher has to be sure that the participants are willing to join and know what the study is about. The idea of the consent is also to inform participants of the research so the researcher has to consider the best way of asking for it (Farrimond 2013, 109110; Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 20122014). I delivered the consent letters for parents one week before starting my observations so that the teachers could collect them before I started. All the families gave a consent in the first group and in the second group the only consent that I never got was from a child who was not present the whole week.

More information about the consents regarding this study in Chapter 5.5 about ethical considerations.

In the Netherlands I contacted two schools by some contacts to the teachers and got the permission to do the observations. However, in both schools they said that the parents’ consents are not needed as I wasn’t directly observing specific children. In the other school I was allowed to give the parents an information letter of my study and in the other school the teachers told the parents about me and my study themselves. Farrimond (2013, 110−111) confirms that the consents can be oral or written. What made it a bit more contradictory in this study was that I got written consents only from the Finnish municipalities and Finnish families when in the Netherlands all consents were oral.

5.2 Ethnographic Research and other Methodological Choices

My study aims to produce descriptions and information about a commu- nity and a culture which is essential for ethnographic study (Lappalainen 2007b, 9; Emond 2005, 123; Hammersley & Atkinson 2007, 1). Alongside explor- ing the features of each culture, it also aims to understand the practices of the observed group as well as the causes and consequences of those practices

(32)

(Alasuutari 2001, 67–70). In this study practices of the educational institutions are seen to be the pedagogical approaches and frameworks that define the environment (see Chapter 2.1). This study is based on ethnography which usually tries to answer the question “What is going on here” (Pole & Morrison, 2003, 18). The aim is to explore what is going on in different classrooms and countries. Ethnographic studies have been described to be a good and used method in researching education and especially childhood or development of children in different cultural contexts (Lange & Mierendorff, 2009, 80−81; Allison, 2010, 249).

In ethnographic study the researcher goes into the prevalent culture and tries to reveal its true character by living inside the system (Emond 2005, 124). It can be used to find or see something that cannot be reached by asking (Tisdall, Davis & Gallagher, 2009, 58). I want to get to know the pedagogical environments in the classrooms and preschool groups by observing and some ways also acting in their social and cultural daily practices which in addition to ethnography also applies in cross cultural studies. After getting to know the pedagogical environment I have to interpret the results by also making a point on my own experiences on the field. (Gordon, T. & Lahelma, E. 2004, 100.)

This study could be seen as institutional ethnography as it partly focuses on what people do and how do they talk about their actions in institutions such as preschools and schools. What is also relevant is how those institutions are regulated by ethical considerations, laws and professional frames. (Komu- lainen, 2014, 244.) Although I am researching the pedagogical environments and groups inside these environments, wanting to know about cultural differences, I also have to keep in mind the individual aspect. Ethnographic study tries to sort out what traits unites the individuals in one group while bearing in mind that the observed individual is always viewed as a representative of one's own culture (Alasuutari, 2001, 67–70). Ergo some generalizations can be made from groups observed in this study. In cross cultural method generalizations are often made by typology and descriptive comparison as well as in this study (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 100).

(33)

I chose to use a few methodological choices in this study because research should not be based on one narrow methodological paradigm but several choices that build the foundation for the study (Patton, 2002, 257). Ethnography can mean the spectrum of methodologies that the researcher is using. (Lap- palainen, 2007b, 9). Next, I will present the essential factors of cross cultural and comparative methods in this study. Cross cultural method is often used in an ethnographic study based on long term observation (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 100). It means researching the same phenomenon or structures in different contexts reaching over national borders and societies. (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 99). It is stated that the countries and factors being studied should have content equivalence so that the comparisons make sense in the first place (Patel, 2006, 90). In this study the equivalence can be justified for instance by both countries being members of EU. Features of comparative method come visible especially when analysing the data. Gordon and Lahelma (2004, 99) claims that cross cultural and comparative methods are often used as synonyms because there are duplications in these research approaches. They actually define that cross cultural method can even be one way of producing comparative study (Gordon &

Lahelma, 2004, 107). The difference between these two methods is that cross cultural study is usually qualitative when comparative studies usually opt for quantitative approach. (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 99−100.) In this study, paraphrasing comparative method, the aim is to view institutions of a similar nature in two different societies but unlike what is usually inherent to comparative studies, without specifically laid down hypothesis (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 99). Ethnographic, comparative and cross cultural methods doesn’t exclude one another but rather complement each other (Gordon & Lahelma, 2004, 100).

5.3 Data Collection

5.3.1 Semi-structured observation

This study is mostly implemented with semi-structured observation also using some features from highly structured observation. Having the research

(34)

questions and observation frame ready before collecting the data implies to highly structured observation, although it doesn’t exclude finding new relevant aspects from the data. (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, 305.) I used the research questions and the theory frame of this study to guide and support me in the beginning of the observations but during the data collection the initial de- limitations and focuses matured and changed into new more interesting views.

The researcher can’t always predict what happens and what the consequences are so flexibility is important for the researcher (Lappalainen 2007a, 83). Alt- hough the original plan might change during the observations, it is still very important for the researcher to be prepared and ready to observe systematically (Patton, 2015, 413).

Observation can be very time consuming and it requires a lot of work why the use of it as a method is important to justify (Grönfors, 2010, 159). Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, 303) formed a list based on Morrison’s (1993) studies about the possibilities to gather data by observation. Those are the physical, human, interactional and programme settings. The observations of this study follows many of those settings and were mostly concerning the activities carried out, following the staff-child ratio, counting times used for transitions between activities, some conversations or interaction between adults and children and some discussions with teachers about the things that the teachers wanted to share about the pedagogical environments. I was first a bit worried if I would get the same kind of data from the Dutch school groups as my language skills are not fluent yet. As I wasn’t allowed to record conversations, I talked a lot with the teachers and always made sure that I understood the system and what happened. The teachers were also very helpful and always came to ask if I had any questions.

(35)

5.3.2 Data

The research data was collected through observation and it consists of field notes, field diary and pictures from two Finnish preschool groups and two Dutch third grade groups. I used pen-paper method when collecting the observations and after each day, I transcribed them to the computer. I spent one week in each group observing the pedagogical environments. As I wanted to make sure I understand everything correctly my research journal also consists of some unofficial interviews or talks with the teachers of these groups. By writing down some conversations I also wanted to give the teachers the possibility to be heard. The following figure shows the data of this study and the hours used to collect it.

Figure 3 Collected Data

Pedagogical environments in education for six-year-old children in Finland and in the Netherlands